dominicWYkanak v Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council

[1998] FCA 1147

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 6001  of   1998

BETWEEN:

dominicWYkanak
APPLICANT

AND:

METROPOLITAN LOCAL ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCIL
FIRST RESPONDENT

NEW SOUTH WALES ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCIL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):

LEE SUNDBERG AND MADGWICK JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

11 SEPTEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

SHORT MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The costs of the first respondent be taxed on an indemnity basis.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 6001 of 1998

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

BETWEEN:

dominicWYkanak

APPLICANT

AND:

METROPOLITAN LOCAL ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCIL
FIRST RESPONDENT

NEW SOUTH WALES ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCIL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):	LEE SUNDBERG AND MADGWICK JJ
DATE:	11 SEPTEMBER 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:  The Court delivered judgment in this matter on 21 August 1998, in which it was held that the appeal be dismissed with costs, and that the costs of the second respondent be taxed on an indemnity basis. 

When judgment was delivered, Madgwick J indicated, in the absence of any representative of the first respondent, that if, contrary to the Court’s then understanding, the first respondent had sought indemnity costs, such a question could be dealt with under the slip rule.  It has since been brought to our attention that the first respondent had duly sought costs on an indemnity basis against the applicant in written submissions that, inadvertently, were not included in the papers before the Court.

What we said in our judgment of 21 August as to the costs application by the second respondent sufficiently applies also to the first respondent to justify the making of such an order in its favour.

Pursuant to O 35 r 7(3) of the Federal Court Rules, we will therefore order that the costs of the first respondent be taxed on an indemnity basis.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Full Court

Associate:

Dated: 11 September 1998

no appearance by the Applicant
Counsel for the First Respondent:	T Robertson
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Woolf Associates
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	R Beech-Jones
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Andrew Chalk and Associates
Date of Hearing:	3 July 1998
Date of Judgment:	11 September 1998